That 50% of MPs should be women

[Frumpitydoo]

Why aren't they? Why isn't this mandated? I know fewer females go into politics, but having had this brought to my attention through Mumsnet, boy has it riled me.

We just get shat on and shafted from the get go and stand no chance, do we?

Is that you, George?

Quite so.

My guess is that people who put themselves forward - of both sexes but moreso for women - tend to be quite atypical in many ways.

@ThirtyThrillionThreeTrees Ah yes. Good old anecdotage. Pesky women/just not up to it, are they? Glad things have gone back to normal.

I agree @ErrolTheDragon

The Tories are indeed a party of equal opportunity. They've promoted just as many incompetent ideologues and self-promoters who are female as male.

And they elected some mighty fine women constituency MPs in that time. But since the all women shortlists have been abandoned, they've gone back to generally having men as the candidate. Let's see what the split is after the next election.

Why on earth should there be an equal number of men and women elected as MPs? You can only vote for the candidates who are put forward for election, and presumably people vote for whoever represents their views and who they think would would make the best MP. I couldn't care less whether the person who is elected as my MP is make or female. My MP at the moment is a woman but it's her political views thst make her better than her predecessor, not the fact that she's a woman. If her political party had selected her from a women-only shortlist, I would not have voted for her in protest.

I basically believe that every constituency should be a battle between the best people for the job and what comes out comes out. But it's bad if parties aren't trying for good representation of their candidates and if they put all the women and minority candidates in unwinnable seats.

I sometimes wonder if we'd have a better country if it was a majority of women, but there's no accounting for awful women like Preeti Patel, Zarah Sultana and the extremes on both sides.

We would expect that in a society that wasn't sexist there would be an equal number of male and female candidates and that there would be an equal number of males and females who were sucessful

That there isn't is the proof that we still live in a society that has sexism throughout its structure

Yes you can't vote for what isn't there

@CurlewKate personally I'd love to see better representation not just in govt but in senior roles in the workforce. But you can't force women. It's depressingly common on Mumsnet to see posts from women who are happy to let their husbands have the high flying career and higher earnings. In my experience in the workplace far more women than men want to work fewer hours, accepting lower wages and lower pension.
It starts within the home, in the family. If a woman doesn't want equality with her partner it's very difficult to see how it can be achieved on a wider scale

Frumpitydoo · Today 08:02

Because they don't represent the people they supposedly represent, nor do they represent women's best interests.
**
See also The Met. and the Police in general”

Cressida Dick didn’t seem much of an improvement.

It's currently 35%, up from 17% in 2001 and still rising. I'm sure it will get there soon. I'm far more concerned about the number of MPs, both men and women, who come from a very narrow demographic of privately educated, law/journalism/City/policy wonk backgrounds.

Likewise with London's first female chief fire officer who had to resign after her poor performance at the Grenfell Fire Inquiry.

The thing with quotas/targets, etc., is that you can end up with the "best woman" for a top job rather than the "best person", which sometimes mean the top job is held by someone who isn't competent enough and only got there due to gender.

What we need is a level playing field where women can compete on a level playing field so that we don't have a man taking a job just because he's a man, rather than an equally competent/able female.

Positive discrimination is just as bad, if not worse, than negative discrimination.

@lizzowhiz Of course you can't force women. But ensuring that there are women on all short lists would at least normalise their presence.

But how can you ensure that there are women on every shortlist? That's not realistic.

It's what happened. I have no reason to lie.

For the roles in question, it's typical than anyone man or women would have 5 years experience at say level 2 before moving to level 3.

Some of them had no level 2 experience or only 1/2 years. They all voiced their opinions at the time about it being too early, many people did.

They would have been ideal future candidates but it was fast tracked without any support. It had a determental impact in that a lot of them actually left and it eroded confidence.

Everyone admits it was wrong and unfair to all.

I am an advocate for women and a lot of women have got promoted since which is really positive but putting people into roles they don't want or haven't the experience for, just to look balanced will never be a good idea.

You used the term pesky women not me. I don't refer to anyone as pesky.

Why just 50%.

We've normalised the male majority for so long we dont even think to demand that equality would be the next 200 years of female majority parliaments.

I reluctantly agree women only shortlists aren’t the way forwards.

What I do believe would change things is mandatory voting.

I think Australia has this? And other countries. Everyone HAS to vote. Our turnouts here are so low, that our MPs cannot be said to be properly representative when only a small percentage have actually bothered to turn out and vote.

I reckon it would change things - whether for the better or not I have no idea!

Yes I definitely agree with compulsory voting, provided there is an option to vote for 'none of the above' or something similar. The turnout in the UK is usually extremely low, and yet people who can't be bothered to vote still seem to think they have a right to express their views on the government/ council that has been elected.

@ThirtyThrillionThreeTrees I haven't experienced a workplace where there are female quotas in recruitment - but I do have a lot of experience in interviewing and management.

It's depressingly common for women to not choose to seek promotion, or to see their career as in second place to their partner's. Until women want to take on more senior roles, more powerful positions, it's difficult to see how things will change. If you don't want to be on equal terms with regard to work and earning in your own family life, you're unlikely to be pushing for it on a wider basis

I agree with you.

If women don't want to,then they shouldn't have too.

I spend my time working with the women who do or who aren't sure. I won't force those who don't want to be involved to get involved.

My last 2 hires were male. They had to be on the interview and experience. A female colleague had a go at me for not appointing a women when she absolutely refused to apply for the role. She would have stood a fair chance at interview and possibly would have been appointed but she absolutely does not want any management responsibilities. Other than that outburst, she's brilliant. I've told her so and encouraged her to apply but it doesn't fit either what she wants and I have to respect that.

@ThirtyThrillionThreeTrees nobody is suggesting giving jobs to people that are unqualified for them. That is a common misunderstanding of the concept of "levelling the playing field" or "positive action". it's about eliminating disadvantage not giving an unfair advantage.

Quotas work and have a trickle down effect in terms of representation, policy etc so yes we should have a system. If women aren’t elected and aren’t in the cabinet then they can’t speak for women everywhere; and we have no voice.

It would be a quick win to mandate that political parties needing to have women only lists in 50% of the constituencies they are fighting in.

I get the concept that MPs should reflect the make up and mix of wider society but in practice it becomes impossible.

Why should it only be based on sex, 18% of the population is BAME, 3% are LGB, x percent aged say18-30 and so on.

How about increasing the opportunity for all and selection being based on ability and competence (which should narrow down the field considerably anyway).

Tbh we got loads of absolutely abysmal under qualified men in senior positions all over the place, men who get jobs because of connections, status, money etc; many in government positions… nobody seems too concerned about them but god forbid we recruit women who are not over qualified… for every Cressida dick there are 10 men in senior police positions making an absolute balls up, hence the lamentable state of British policing at the omens!